Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of big-bust models and performers 2nd


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was no consensus, even discounting new and possible single purpose accounts. --Core des at 05:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

List of big-bust models and performers
big-bust cup pov lists Spey Aqza 11:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Spey Aqza (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. &mdash;  Da rk Sh ik ar i   talk /contribs  12:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: This is the second nomination the first can be found here: Articles for deletion/List of big-bust models and performers Valoem   talk  02:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep (and tag the nomination as db-g1). Tonywalton | Talk 15:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Wow, this is the most ridiculous thing I've seen all day. POV, listcruft, unverifiable, unmaintainable, useless.  It's a list categorizing porn stars on the size of their breasts, come on people. --The Way 19:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep The nominators ONLY edits are nominating this article for deletion. TJ Spyke 21:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment What does that have to do with anything? Just because the nominator is questionable by no means implies that the article nominated is acceptable.  --The Way 22:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

*Delete even IF (note conditional) the nom was in bad faith, this is a good AfD. The list is entirely subjective (and thus has neutrality and original research problems. Also, lists of random physical features is entirely non-notable. --Jayron32 06:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nice long list, but, just seems totally pointless (pun not intended).  Could be considered WP:POV as no doubt there are different PsOV on what constitutes a big bust! QuiteUnusual 22:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Listcruft. Koweja 22:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean-up, define what is considered big-bust and remove those who don't fit. Edgecution 23:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Double-D-elete - Pun definitely intended. The list would become unmanageable. Torinir ( Ding my phone  My support calls   E-Support Options  ) 00:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Useless, unencyclopedic listcruft.  Switcher cat  talkcont 01:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per The Way and QuiteUnusual. Subjective and rather trivial. There's no one standard of what makes a bust big, nor is there any encyclopaedic reason to group people in this manner. GassyGuy 01:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Vote changed (see below) --Jayron32 19:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination reeks of an SPA. The list is probably useful to someone, and there are plenty of lists about people with random physical features.  People missing one eye, missing appendages, etc.--MonkBirdDuke 14:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * A lot of things are "probably useful to someone." That doesn't really mean we should host all of them, does it? GassyGuy 15:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. The list is manageable; the definition of "big bust adult performer" has caused far less quarrels than people here predict. Porn actresses and notable models are allowed on wikipedia, so there's no reason to disallow a list that groups them by an attribute important in their industry. -- Mikeblas 14:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comments. This appears to be a bad faith, SPA nomination, indeed. Meanwhile, the topic was previously considered for deletion: Articles for deletion/List of big-bust models and performers. -- Mikeblas 14:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "Keep" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.133.126 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment For those of you who are troubled by the nominator, just pretend I nominated this bit of trivia instead and go from there. There's really not so much productive in discussing the motivation behind the nomination here. Best just to focus on the article at hand. GassyGuy 15:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Ad hominem defenses are faulty ways to provide evidence for your point of view. Ad hominem means against the person: We are not debating the qualities of the person who nominated the AfD.  That discussion can go on elsewhere on Wikipedia, like Requests for Intervention or other such places.  The only valid means for deciding whether to keep or delete this article lie in the subject of the article itself.  Not the quality of the writing.  Not the people who have edited or created it.  And certainly not in the personality of the original nominator.  The article in question is subjective and and random.  It lacks notability.  Porn actresses are notable.  Models are notable.  Lists of random porn actresses and models by a random physical trait is NONNOTABLE.  Stop trying to defend the "keep" position by ad hominem means.  Defend the article itself on its own terms.  Provide evidence.  You can sway opinions by making a good case, not by attacking the original nom.  --Jayron32 18:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't think anyone here is attacking the nominator. They're attacking the nomination itself. Ad hominem would mean saying that the nominator is a bad person, therefore his nomination is bad. We've simply said the nomination is bad. Sockpuppetry and bad faith administrative actions are real problems on Wikipedia, and it's not necessary to follow through with a problematic action if we know it to be unsound. -- Mikeblas 14:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above.-- Kf4bdy talk contribs 18:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy/Strong Keep not only is this a very interesting article that many people use (also frequently edited), a category of this list does not exist. This list both rare to find and can easily capture many people's attention. It is mostly NPOV since cup size can be used to categorize this. Valoem   talk  01:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I am going to make a comment. AfD is NOT vote and I noticed many people are saying the same thing. This is a counter-argument to all who voted delete.


 * 1. List is POV - This list is not POV because other than one or two actresses in the list all other actresses have minimum of a D Cup. Therefore the size is not POV, but requires a physical measurement based on cup size.


 * 2. List is unverifiable - Are you kidding me? List is Verifiable simply look up the actress in question and see her cup size.


 * 3. List is unmaintainable - How many actresses can you name off the top of your head that have a D cup? In fact many actresses/models do not have large breasts, after all large breasts are consider a fetish see breast fetish.


 * 4. Listcruft - no it is not, it does not fall into any of the categories in listcrust, List is maintainable, The list is of interest applies very large number of people (don't forgot none wikipedia members), The list is a discriminate collection of information, The list has content beyond links to other articles, and category does not exist and needs to be created Valoem   talk  02:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Unindenting Wait - fetishes are all about uncommon things? Care to explain, say, fart fetishism, then? This list is of interest to a very large number of people? That's debatable, but even if so, is it of encyclopaedic interest? Highly unlikely. Host it somewhere else if you're a fan of the list, but there is no real justification for it as encyclopaedic content. GassyGuy 03:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep: Wikipedia is not paper. If there is a better title, let's rename it. -- User:Docu
 * Comment What's the point in having lists on here if you can't have a big boob list?--MonkBirdDuke 12:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep: Either keep this list or delete _all_ lists. --  &mdash; Xojo   (talk) 


 * Keep: Either keep this list or delete _all_ lists. -- Kamui99 01:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * reply To the previous two votes: all lists are not equal. Some lists, such as List of heavy metal bands or List of the monarchs of the Kingdom of England are notable in that they are based on notable information.  The former is about bands based on their genre.  Musical acts are discussed within the context of their genre.  Knowing the genre of a band is essential to understanding how the music is to be understood and reviewed.  The latter contains a collection of Monarchs listed by dynasty and in order by date of reign.  Again, notable and important information to understand context.  This list contains a list of models organized by a random physical trait.  "Lists of models by modeling agency", or "lists of models by major ad campaigns", or "lists of models appearing in Penthouse magazine" would ALL be notable lists: They contain information about notable people organized in a notable way.  A person's mere physical statistics (height, weight, eye color, and even cup size) are NOT notable.  Thus, this list is non notable. --Jayron32 01:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep: Not very useful but keep and rename. Make it clear what "big bust" is and who is notable for it. Remove people who do not fit in to the category. Fedayee 08:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.22.135 (talk • contribs)


 * Keep. The list now has a specific cup size requirement so it is no longer subjective.  Vegaswikian 18:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * reply please see above. To sum up: Simple physical statisistics (height, weight, eye color, even cup size) are not notable traits.  Lists of models can be notable, if they are listed by NOTABLE characteristics.  This does not pass. --Jayron32 01:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * reply In the field of adult entertainment / modeling, bust size IS a notable trait, otherwise there wouldn't be such widespread genre specific publication Charlam 00 04:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep nomination is by an SPA (thats 1 strike against this afd), article was previously nominated for afd (thats another strike against this afd)... and Valoem makes a strong argument towards keeping it.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 16:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * reply 1) Ad hominem defenses are faulty (don't base your defense on the personality of the person who nominated the article) 2) the prior AfD was NO CONSENSUS. This is not the same as keep.  It means exactly what it says.  There was no consensus reached to do anything, so the status quo was kept by default.  It doesn't mean that there was ever widespread consensus that this article is notable.  3) Valoem's arguement above is faulty because it merely says that it is interesting and useful.  Neither is a "keep" defense.  Lots of things are interesting and useful, but not entirely encyclopedic.  As a "category" it might be worthwhile to categorize models by bust size, but as an article, it is a pointless list.  The only person voting for keep who made ANYTHING of a credible arguement is Charlam about two votes above.  I respectfully disagree; but at LEAST he is making a keep vote on notability grounds.  Also of note, THE ARTICLE IS ENTIRELY UNREFERENCED... Thus it is original research, and thus it is also deletable.  If EACH performer or model listed could be linked to an appropriate third-party reference that identified her as the cup size the article claimed to be, then we MIGHT have something, but as it stands now, it is Orignial Research, a direct violation of Wikipedia policy, and thus it must go... --Jayron32 18:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

" IF the nomination was in bad faith" (note the use of the conditional word IF. It means that we are discussing a possibility, not a certainty.  I have no idea of the mindset or intent of the original nominator, NOR DO I CARE) such a defense is still an ad hominem defense; it is a deflection of the actual issue, and a means of avoiding having to enter the actual debate on THIS article. If you belive bad faith to have been exercised here, then go to Requests for Intervention and ask to have the user blocked. It has NO BEARING on the inherant notability of this article. MAKE ARGUEMENTS RELATING TO THE CONTENT OF THIS ARTICLE. I apologize for "shouting", but so far only one person, Charlam, has done so; though it would be nice to see any proof that his assertion is true... Are adult models routinely catagorized in this way and is such catagorization used (note the past tense: not useful, but used in the sense that others have used this information before it appeared on wikipedia) routinely in reliable sources. If anyone could make a credible arguement of the MERITS of this article, and could make some proof as to actual notability, I would change my vote. As yet, we have 1 unverified assertion that I would call a claim of notability. EVERYONE else has avoided discussing the merits of this article by deflecting the debate away from the contents of the article. They make arguements against other lists, or they make arguements against people involved in the debate. Neither kind of arguement brings anything to the discussion. --Jayron32 22:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC) "Keep" as it is information but the title should be changed.
 * reply First of all an unreferenced article is hardly a reason to delete. If an article is unreferenced you add references. It is only when an article is unreferenced and references can not be made that you delete under WP:V. Secondly, this article is referenced in the links to the persons in question. If you click on anyone one of the people listed on that page their own articles have both references and their stated bust size. You also didn't mention any of the other points that I have made including my arguments against listcruft and WP:V. Therefore this article is not original research. Lastly, even you have stated that this nomination was bad faith, these are all the more reasons to keep. Valoem   talk  19:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * reply to reply Ok, I will concede that the references can be found in the respective articles. I retract that the article is original research, but it is still NOT NOTABLE.  It is still nothing more than a listing of people by a random and arbitrary physical statistic.  Good lists can be made of adult models; this is not one of them.  One more point:  As i said before
 * reply to reply Not sure if this is what you're asking for, but as far as I can think of, to prove cup size is a valid standard measurement in aduly models would be to cite publications specializing only in models that would fit in this category, such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Score_%28magazine%29, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Busty_Beauties, Gent, a specialiazed title series of Playboy (Playboy's Voluptuous Vixens) which is based solely on the models having larger then "average" bustlines. Aside from this, numerous websites featuring models specifically of D cup or larger, the fact that many Feature Dancers are booked by cup size and to some degree even the article on Breast Fetishism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast_fetishism) would point to the relevance of this particular measurement standing out versus other physical characteristics. Charlam 00 18:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above. --Myles Long 21:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Change vote to Keep. Thank you to Charlam.  Homework has been done.  Article looks like it can be made to pass the threshold.  Suggestions to make it better:
 * 1) Use the tag to direct readers to the Breast Fetishism article.  Perhaps a sentance or two from that article applied here will help establish context.
 * 2) REFERENCE the notability of this article using the same references as the Breast Fetishism article. Also indicate the most notable magazines and film series to focus on Breast Fetishism, perhaps under a "see also" section.  There appears to be reputable sources that indicate the notability of this particular kink, and so those references apply equally as well to both articles.
 * 3) Rename the list article to indicate better that we are talking about Porn Actresses. Perhaps "List of Adult Film Actresses with Large Breasts" or some such.  The title is misleading, as it could refer to non-adult film stars or models.  I will still hold that OUTSIDE of porn, the catagorization of breast size is a non notable trait.  The article needs to indicate its own context to make itself notable. --Jayron32 19:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Month after month, this is one of the most sought after lists on Wikipedia, with an average of over 34,000 page views per day in the month of August 2006 alone.  Yamaguchi先生 03:39, 1 November 2006
 * Keep. Wikipedia excels in treatments of popular culture not treated in academia. The topic is of interest to many, even if 'vulgar'. Perhaps the strongest critique (apart from poor definition one mentioned above) is the feminist one that treating the topic legitimizes the objectification of women as sex objects. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rnest2002 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 1 November 2006  (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.